People mention “weed culture”...it’s no different than “beer culture” or “whiskey culture”. There’s tons of breweries that have opened up in my area. People go there and drink their faces off because they appreciate the taste and like the effect of different beers.

There’s really no difference! Same shit, different substance.

I do enjoy these conversations, and I do value different viewpoints, but many view points are misguided or “old” ways of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
. . . and often the recruiters themselves fill out the SF-86 and don't list anything derogatory.

The recruit signs, certifying the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ are true and correct. If the recruit does not read the form, and insist on any errors/omissions being corrected, the recruit is both foolish AND dishonest. Even at age 18, it's not too much to expect them to be honest, both in their answers, and in certifying the form is true and correct.

I've talked to recruits who never even saw the SF-86. I'm a background investigator.

Never saw it? Then how.did they sign it? Even if only shown the signature page, they are foolish and dishonest for.signing a document saying something is true and correct, when they haven't insisted on reviewing it for accuracy. Recruiters doing this are wrong, but it doesn't absolve the recruit of their own culpability.

BTW, I've also done SSBIs, as an additional duty at my first Fed LE agency, and I have zero sympathy for those lying when certifying the SF-86/EPSQ as true and correct.

They aren't certifying it, the recruiter is (that's the whole point of what I was saying). I've had recruits tell me they provided the recruiter with the information over the phone and the recruiter submits the form. It's called recruiter falsification and I wouldn't say it's common but I get about 2 or 3 cases a year. It creates a lot more paperwork but I don't think the military really does anything about it.

Whether submitted via a paper SF-86, or through the EPSQ program, the individual must sign a statement declaring that everything contained on the forms is true and correct.

On the first page there is a warning about making false statements/omissions of material fact, and citing the penalties under 18USC1001. At the end of the form, the recruit/applicant must sign/date a certification which reads:

My statements on this form, and on any attachments to it, are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. I have carefully read the foregoing instructions to complete this form. I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both (18 U.S.C. 1001). I understand that intentionally withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information may have a negative effect on my security clearance, employment prospects, or job status, up to and including denial or revocation of my security clearance, or my removal and debarment from Federal service.

Recruiters do not certify the information is true and correct, the recruits do. Again, if they are certifying that it's true and correct, without having actually read it, they are both foolish and dishonest.

I've been completing the SF-86 for myself (military and civilian employment), and I've worked on SSBIs for applicants. The recruit/applicant, not the recruiter, is required to certify the information is true and correct.

If a recruit told you they didn't certify the contents of the SF-86/EPSQ as true and correct, they were lying, and you were wrong to believe them. Unless, the recruiter is forging the certification, they can't submit the SF-86/EPSQ without a recruit signing the certification.

Some might argue that one who would chose to use a mind altering drug, regardless what the drug of choice might be, does not have the level of discernment required for a certain position.

One might argue that if one chooses to use something illegal, he/she does not have the personal character or ethics necessary to conduct certain assignments.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Anyone here believe that partaking in weed in states where its recreational use is legal should disqualify them from having a DOD clearance (Clarence)?

Yes, without question. It impairs their judgment. Just as you wouldn't want an alcoholic to have a security clearance.



.

I don't know how it all works, but couldn't it also leave one compromised?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.

see what I did there?

Nailed it!

No missed it completely.

If you get falling down drunk at a bachelor party on saturday, the alcohol will be out of your body by monday when you go to work.
Can the same be said for weed? No. It can take weeks. So on monday you are still "under the influence"

Not true at all. Sure, it's still detectable in your system. It doesn't mean you are still impaired. Trust me from someone who smoked weed every day for years. When you aren't high any more, you simply aren't high. And it's not like booze where you think you are sober, but in reality you are still a drunk asshole. You smoke weed in bed, watch a movie, fall asleep. You wake up completely sober.

Your argument is just not true - you are not impaired or under the influence for weeks while it is in your system.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Isn't this a catch 22 when the Federal Government does all it can to stymie research on medical uses of MJ and it's derivatives? I would like to see proper scientific research.

Scientific/Medical research has been legal for many decades, albeit, with approval by the US government. However, the government has increased the ease with which the research can be approved/conducted the last few years.

Further, the US is not the only place on the planet where scientific/medical research can be done.

So it's not true to say there is a "Catch 22" with regard to scientific/medical research.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
It was medicinal before rec was legal.
I can say with 100% certainty that your assertion is not entirely true. There are many people who have ailments for which marijuana helps.

Again, anecdotes are worthless. What is needed are legitimate peer reviewed studies, showing safety and efficacy for medical purposes.

Asking for it to be used for medical purposes, BEFORE it's been proven safe and effective for any medical purpose, is the medical/scientific equivalent of Nancy Pelosi's claim about legislation, that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it." The "medical" marijuana advocates have said, "we have to let everyone use this as medicine, to see if it's safe and effective as medicine." The problem is what if it's not safe and/or effective? Legitimate scientific study must be done first.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
People mention “weed culture”...it’s no different than “beer culture” or “whiskey culture”. There’s tons of breweries that have opened up in my area. People go there and drink their faces off because they appreciate the taste and like the effect of different beers.

There’s really no difference! Same shit, different substance.

That's simply not true. Plenty of people, myself included have one beer, because they enjoy the taste. No intention to get high, just enjoy one beer.

No one is ingesting "weed" for the taste, the purpose is to get high.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
If you get falling down drunk at a bachelor party on saturday, the alcohol will be out of your body by monday when you go to work.
Can the same be said for weed? No. It can take weeks. So on monday you are still "under the influence"

Maybe, maybe not.

That's one of the big issues with pot.

I absolutely hate it when people bring up alcohol when trying to argue pot. If you want to argue pot legalization, argue pot legalization. Show some randomized double-blind studies, show evidence, etc.... But, they always seem to simply compare it to alcohol.

Since we're on the topic though, alcohol goes in, gets metabolized and goes out in a predictable fashion and time-frame. THC, however, is fat-soluble. It stays in your body for an unpredictable amount of time. Now, when it does get released, it does not get released in an amount sufficient to get you high, but it is in an amount sufficient to make you show up hot on a piss test. So...how do we know? How do we know if you smoked yesterday or three weeks ago?

If you want to get rich, develop a test that will determine not just the presence of, but levels of THC and the corresponding impairment levels. Then, let us know so we can invest in your company.

To the OP, I smoked in my teens and early 20s. I don't recall my recruiter ever asking about it, but maybe he did. When I was in, our flight surgeon put us all in for TS clearance (why? I don't know). I was honest about it and told them of my previous use. No issues whatsoever and I got my clearance.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

But returning to marijuana alcohol, I have seen WAY too many folks too stoned drunk to function in basic tasks, exhibiting a clear reduced mental state. Even if legalized, While legal, there are just some things people using marijuana alcohol should be limited from doing. If getting high drunk is someone’s priority, I wouldn’t want them handling top secret information, personally.

see what I did there?

Nailed it!

No missed it completely.

If you get falling down drunk at a bachelor party on saturday, the alcohol will be out of your body by monday when you go to work.
Can the same be said for weed? No. It can take weeks. So on monday you are still "under the influence"

Not true at all. Sure, it's still detectable in your system. It doesn't mean you are still impaired. Trust me from someone who smoked weed every day for years. When you aren't high any more, you simply aren't high. And it's not like booze where you think you are sober, but in reality you are still a drunk asshole. You smoke weed in bed, watch a movie, fall asleep. You wake up completely sober.

Your argument is just not true - you are not impaired or under the influence for weeks while it is in your system.

Actually there are many people that can function fine legally drunk. Why do you think they put a hard number on blood alcohol level for operating a vehicle?
You want a "not impaired" surgeon working on you?

So you agree it still is in your system. So you are doing your job with drugs in your system. So then the next day you do a little more, and there is more in your system.
Get it?
Alcohol is gone at a rate of a ounce an hour. After that time it is not in your system.

How is the stereotypical weed user pictured? Clean cut guy in a suit? No, not quite. Where do stereotypes come from? Observations of behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Actually there are many people that can function fine legally drunk.

Yes there are, and I've known many of them. I once worked with a general surgeon who was an amazing guy and a skilled surgeon. Steady as a rock and sharp as a tack. Better than most sober surgeons I've known...but...he was "legally" drunk.

I've worked with an anesthesiologist who was the same. Steady as a rock and sharp as a tack. An encyclopedia of information and always one that I would trust to call with any question I had and he'd have the solution immediately, yet with a BA of 2.0. Surprised everyone in the department. You'd never have known.

Do we have to have minimums? Yeah... we do. But I don't know the right answer.